CCMinutes - 11/15/04 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for two weeks. Councilor Solomon determined from Mr. Klein that the council was scheduled to take action on the application on November 22, and leaving the record open would mean action would be postponed until December 6. Councilor Kelly thought the issues raised by the application were significant and wanted the applicant and neighborhood association to be able to respond to any staff responses. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Klein said the council would not need to hold another public hearing. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:0. Councilor Kelly conceded that the parcel was not suited for residential development, but he believed the issue before the council was the larger principle of whether the council would honor neighborhood refinement plans. The City and neighborhoods had put a "lot of stock" in those plans. While they could be revised, that should be done in the context of a broad public process including all property owners, not just a single applicant. He believed the proposed amendment "made a mockery of the plan" by failing to consider context. Councilor Kelly was "almost a little embarrassed" by the findings' discussion of public need. He pointed out that the City had put aside 20 acres for commercial development in the immediate area of the applicants' property and no commercial development had occurred. Until a public need was demonstrated, no more commercial land should be developed. He thought the findings were "grasping at straws," and noted that while Mr. Kloos said that a motel was not the reason for the application, the findings specifically mentioned the potential of motels on the site, so he concluded "the applicant did talk about a motel." Councilor Kelly could not connect that to public need. If the property owner had owned the property for many years he would feel differently, but the property owner bought the property three years ago knowing its limitations. He agreed that property owners should be able to use their property, but the correct approach was through the refinement plan. Councilor Meisner thanked those offering testimony for their clear and cogent remarks. Given that the record had been held open, he would not state a position on the applications at this time as he did not think it appropriate to go on the record before the public record closed. Councilor Meisner said through its transportation plans and lobbying, the City had made it clear it was seeking new ramps from Franklin Boulevard to 1-5 and wanted to look at that possibility and its relationship to other interchanges comprehensively. He asked if Planning or Public Works staff had looked at the future of the interchange in question in light of possible changes and done any analysis whether the commercial node would remain viable if the ramps were built. Mayor Torrey asked what could be located on the property in question if the application was denied. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments and questions for future staff follow-up. Councilor Bettman wanted to know if the property had been encumbered by the prohibition on development under power lines when the applicant bought the property, and if the residential zoning had been in place at that time. Ms. Thomas indicated staff would get back to her with an answer. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 6 Regular Meeting